Skip to main content
7:00 am
analysis with a white house reporter of "the washington post," and "bloomberg news." "washington journal"is next. ♪ host: what will a recollected administration do with a returning gop majority? what was the message of the election. leaders of both parties give us their take on that yesterday. we want to turn to all of you. your vote, your message to washington.
7:01 am
we began with the front page of ."sa today, this is what richard wolf writes. the two sites listed no time sticking out their positions on the potential crisis that is 54 days away.
7:02 am
this is what the two leaders had to say yesterday. we will start with harry reid and move on to john boehner. [video clip] >> they are tired of partisan gridlock. i have one goal, to be obama. obama was reelected overwhelmingly. republicans want us to work together. democrats want us to work together. they want to reach a balanced approach to everything, but especially the situation we have with the huge deficit. taxes are a part of that. >> the american people have spoken. they have reelected president obama, and every elected a republican majority. if there was a mandate, it is a
7:03 am
mandate for us to find a way to work together on the solutions to the challenges we all face as a nation. my message today is not one of confrontation, but one of conviction. mr. president, this is your moment. we are ready to be led. not as democrats or republicans, but as americans. we want you to lead as president of the united states of america. we want you to succeed. let's challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us. let's do the right thing together for our country. host: ron, you are up first. what was the message to washington? caller: i really think compromise is in the air in a positive way.
7:04 am
it is so wonderful in my mind of president obama was elected. people can start to really work together. not just politicians, but people who will help solve problems and move forward and enter a positive way. -- in a positive way. so many negative comments i heard before the election. i really think they have no validity in trying to portray him as somebody who is not doing well by people. the thing that has not been mentioned on c-span or other channels very often is that the republican driven congress and obstructed. when they had their democratic majority, people fail to
7:05 am
mention 12 blue dog democrats, which in my view were very republicans in disguise. host: let's look forward. what do you want the president to work on? caller: i think jobs. included in that will be energy, moving forward on a lot of different fronts. renewable energy to some -- also feels if they can be done responsibly. health care can yield many jobs. i think obamacare will be good. i think all of these will really energize jobs. it will be a positive thing for the american people. host: we will move onto native
7:06 am
who is a republican in florida. caller:my name is nat. i crossed the aisle to the democratic side. the reason for it is because i believe the president of's agenda is on a positive role. it takes time to correct the course of this country. by the time his actions of three years ago catches up, it will probably be his sixth year in office. then you will probably start seeing the yield of all of the effort he put an two or three years ago. some of us really want to be able to eat that big bird. i think we woke up in the morning and realize some people are going to have to realize
7:07 am
how to season their crow and enjoy eating at. if we do not continue to stay on the president's course, we will find our difficulties will not and that quickly. host: the reelected president called for bipartisanship and addressing for priorities over the next four years. reducing the deficit, overhauling the tax code, revising immigration laws, and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil. some key elements as he sets out for a second term. what is your message to washington? eric, you are next. sorry about that. hopefully you can call back in. wayne from ohio, a democratic color.
7:08 am
caller: i think the message should be in washington everybody should work together. nobody should try to hold the government hostage. we need more when the power and solar power. i think everybody should have -- maybe not right this minute but everybody should have solar panels on every roof. host: is that why you voted for the democratic ticket? caller: i think democrats are part of the future. the republicans are just the party of the past. host: the leader in the senate had this to say.
7:09 am
nancy pelosi had this to say. one of the big items the two sites will have to work on is the fiscal clef and the tax issue. usa today. out that the exit polls show a plurality of americans back raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year. caller: i would like to say that
7:10 am
the democrats are living in a fantasy world. obama plans to run our deficit up to $20 trillion. that $20 trillion means that just the interest will be $1 trillion a year. there will not be any money for anything else. all of the things the democrats want will be destroyed by obama. host: on the issue of the deficit, president obama has said he wants to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year. exit polls showed 6 in 10 hits it taxes should be increased on those making that much money. caller: here is the problem. obama is not telling everybody is the amount of money they will tax the rich will only run the government for a couple of weeks. that is not enough money. we will then have to tax the
7:11 am
middle class. at the end of his term, we are going to have to raise the taxes on the middle class. we will have to take money from the poor. host: indiana, democratic color. caller: i have to highly disagree with the gentleman who just called. i look at how much money they spent in advertising for this campaign the past two years. they could have invested that towards the deficit. host: do you think all of that money worked? deep pocketed owners pay the price. they spent all this money. the status quo remains the same. caller: exactly. there is some much money invested in advertising towards the campaign that if it were
7:12 am
invested into the economy -- did not sell much creating jobs -- i am focused on trading business for the small people -- the people trying to become middle- class. there would have been more going around it. everybody has ideas. the thing we need to focus on is seriously alternative fuels. with alternative it feels, -- alternative fuels, other people can have a chance to put their idea not so much in big oil -- everybody gets a piece of the pie. host: on your comments about how much money was spent. here is "usa today."
7:13 am
on the issue of whether or not the big wealthy donors cut their money's worth. go ahead shirley. caller: the people in this country are so tired of the fighting in the washington. like the one candidate said, if they do not do their jobs, they do not get paid. we, the people, have to start taking these matters into hands. we are sick of it. what i would like to tell john
7:14 am
boehner is, do not cave in to the craziness. this is nothing but craziness. i watched harry reid yesterday. he talked and talked and really said nothing. i thought to myself, all you do is dance around these bills that they send. the house will have a bill and vote on it. they send it to the senate. what does he do -- he dances around it. host: know by partisanship for you? caller: absolutely none. when he was walking off, i feel bad for him but he cannot get it together. he grabs ahold of the flag. he was falling and then he grabbed a hold of the wall. at that point i said, uh oh, that man needs to go home. he is too old to be there.
7:15 am
he does not do his job and he is collecting a big paycheck. host: we covered that news conference. go to our web site, for all of you who might have missed it. if you want to watch the entire press conference with harry reid. on facebook, here is what wendy had to say. on twitter -- a democratic caller, what is your message to washington? caller: i would like to first congratulate the american people
7:16 am
on using good sense by reelecting the president. mr. romney had no plan. he was just saying the opposite of what the president was presenting to the american people. i do not know how anybody who in this position could get as far as he did with nothing to offer the american people. i just cannot understand. what were the americans thinking to even consider him as a candidate? he had nothing to offer. everything was derogatory or nonexistent or was just arguing about what the president was doing. host: you sound like a passionate supporter of the president. caller: i am a passionate supporter of the country. i want somebody who will help the american people to progress. i want to see america --
7:17 am
host: you want compromise? caller: yes. make no mistake about it, he has people that would have the country completely destroyed rather than try to bring the government to a conclusion where everybody will benefit. there are some people who feel other people should not exist or have benefits and they will do everything possible, spend all their money, this route the government to prevent other people from having a happy life -- disrupt the government to prevent other people from having a happy life. host: do you think president obama should govern as if he has a mandate? caller: he has to be aggressive. you can be aggressive and so compromise. let me say this. the accomplice is the tea party.
7:18 am
if obama or romney were president, they would still have trouble. the tea party has an agenda. they do not want to compromise. we have a problem on our hands. the president is going to have to operate by a mandate to get something done as much as he can. host:from "usa today" --
7:19 am
we will go to jim next, an independent caller. what was the message you were trying to send to congress and the white house? caller: yes, ma'am. i was watching your show as i tried to. we as the american public are kind of blind. we like to be like a little kitten. when we have our chance scratched, we close our eyes. we know we are living longer and longer than we have for 50 or 60 years ago. automation makes less jobs.
7:20 am
there is just so many computers one can sit behind and so many yards that can be cut. with less and less jobs because of automation, more and more people living longer with longevity, i do not know the answer. anybody that says they are going to create another 2.5 million jobs or 150,000 more jobs than the people losing jobs every month, i think you are getting your chance scratched like the cats do. i do not know the answer, but i was there was one. host: we are going to keep taking your phone calls on this. we want to update you on some of the races across the country that were not called on tuesday night. we will star with the north dakota senate race.
7:21 am
the democrat there will be coming to senate. she beat rick berg. she will join 19 other women to come up with 20, which is a record four women serving in the senate. ann kirkpatrick, a democratic candidate to beat jonathan paton. in california, the democrat there beats tony strickland. michigan's first. the republican, benishek, co mes out the victor. there are a few other outstanding ones. go to our web site as we told you yesterday, the state of florida had yet to be called. here is the "miami herald."
7:22 am
we still do not know where the 29 electoral votes will go, but it has not made a difference in the overall outcome of the presidential election. back to the topic of what was your message to washington. a lot of newspaper articles this morning about the fiscal cliff. that is what faces these leaders as they make their way back to washington. here is the fiscal -- "the financial times." topping that list is paul ryan, the vice-president candidate returning to congress and has asked to continue on as chairman of the house budget committee. those are the people doing the negotiations. moving on to "the washington
7:23 am
post." they know earlier wednesday barack obama call john boehner and others to urge them to put aside partisan interests to advance the interests of the american people. let's go back to your phone calls. from irving, calif., a irvingcaller. caller: i voted for mitt romney. host: what was your message? caller: i was like to say to get on and strain of the country. some of these callers are saying romney did not have a plan. he had a plan. he said it over and over again. i would call john boehner, it is time to compromise. you drop obamacare and we will raise the tax rate. let's get on with it and pass
7:24 am
the bush tax cuts for another six months to straighten out the tax code. we took a stab at it in california. it can be done. the problem is nothing is easy politically. the other cliff we have to face is the budget deficit. we have to tackle it. that means a straight across cut on everything we spend some reasonable amount every year. we have to start cutting our spending. it is not the government's job to give a hand up to half of the population. that is not the government's job. it is to protect us from outside forces and keep the law. host: you said continue all the tax cuts for six months while they try to come to a compromise over overhauling the entire tax
7:25 am
code? caller: that is correct. it is a miss. you have one-third of people taking crazy deductions and two thirds people paying it straight. host: would you lose your deduction for mortgage interest? caller: i would be willing to do what ever it takes. let me put it this way. you can cut interest deductions, or you can cut the state and local tax deductions. or you can cut a percentage of all of them. do something so that the number of people who file on the short term goes up and the people on the long form goes down. do something about simplifying the tax forms. we passed six bills to simplify it in california. there is no reason why two
7:26 am
thirds of the people or three- quarters of the people or 80% of the people cannot have a tax form they can fill out themselves without paying anybody. host: who are the next leaders of the republican party? caller: i have submitted bills to people who would listen. one was marco rubio. if he did not have a bipartisan bill in the first place, it is not going anywhere. that is true in california or anywhere. if you do not have sponsors on both sides of the aisle, do not bother. host:on twitter -- this is "to the baltimore sun." the go through the list of tax cuts to expire.
7:27 am
let's take a look over the next phone call at what we are looking at when it comes to negotiations. angela in maryland, a democratic caller. caller: i want to talk about the fiscal cliff. we're talking about 3% on the wealthy. every economist and even the wealthy themselves say it needs to be part of a bipartisan deal. every person, richman economist says revenues have to be part of a bipartisan deal. if not the entire economy is going to collapse. it is 3%. it will not get rid of the deficit. but it creates confidence that america can get along and work out their problems and start reducing instead of adding to the deficit.
7:28 am
without the confidence, every economist says we're going to head into a recession. the richman will lose all of his money. we are all going to lose our jobs. why dillydally over 3%? as far as social security goes, ronald reagan already raised the age on me. it does not need to be raised again. they need to take the cap off. let people retire at a decent age when the younger people start working. host: let me give this some opinions this morning. the new york times editorial page.
7:29 am
we will talk about foreign affairs coming up around 8:45 eastern time when we have a roundtable discussion with two reporters about the president's agenda. also this morning, lots of in the papers about the cliff walk. karl rove had a piece about why he thought the president won. he said --
7:30 am
fred barnes, a conservative also writes -- he will be our guest tomorrow morning to talk about the future of the republican party. tv ratings for election night approached 2008 records. this is from "the new york times." may break it down by networks in case you are interested in that. rebuttal raises questions about his role.
7:31 am
one of fox executive one floor up when karl rove questioned why fox was calling ohio for president obama, the team of producers allowed him to say on television what he was finding and hearing from the romney campaign. the story about why carl rove was allowed to stay on air, why he did not think ohio was going to go for the president. a couple of more phone calls. stu, what was your vote and what was caller: your:might vote was for mitt romney, and my message was jobs. i run a relatively small aviation service company,
7:32 am
primarily with first time employees. yesterday i called all of my part-time employees and and said because obama won, i was cut in their hours from 30 to 25 a week so i would not fall under the obamacare mandate. if i am forced to change these part-timers because of the rules of obamacare, i would fly go out of business. i would not have enough. unfortunately, i had to cut their hours and a late two people off to get under the 50 per cent cap. i tried to make sure the people i had to lay off voted for obama. host: this is the front page of your newspaper this morning.
7:33 am
what do you think? caller: i think they will cede control to the federal government simply because we cannot afford to set up our own hmo's down here. that will be the unintended consequence of this election. people are going to lose more jobs. i am struggling to stay in business. obamacare is going to put me out of business easily. host: 4 worth, texas, a democratic caller. -- fort worth, texas. caller: president obama needs to draw a line in the sign and tell mitch mcconnell and john boehner -- they do not respect him.
7:34 am
they do not respect him as a man. do not just give away anything. i used to pick cotton. he had to do with the man said. that is what the republican party wants obama to do. he can do anything, but he has to talk with the republican party first. host: matthew from louisiana, a republican caller. caller: good morning. i voted for mitt romney. the first time i ever voted for liberty, freedom, and the rights of our constitution. i have one thing from abraham lincoln i would like to read real quick. you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. you cannot strengthen the weak
7:35 am
by weakening the strong. you could not help the poor man by destroying the rich. it cannot come into the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. you could not encourage by taking away initiative and independence. you could not help small men by tearing down big men. you cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. you could not establish security on borrowed money. you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves. host: rick from carolina. how did you vote? caller: i will not tell you who i voted for, but i will tell you i voted against fear.
7:36 am
though the home of the free and the land of the brave. i have been putting my hand across my heart and saying "one nation under god, indivisible." i would like to say, let's stop all of the fear. we are worried about iran right now. they are going to have the equivalent of a do clear bottle rocket. we seem to want to worry about what everyone else is doing in the world. we are all worried our economy is going to go down the tubes. good things happen. the bad things happen. as a nation, we have to deal with it. i am 60 years old. i have gone through all types of issues in my life. i lost my job four years ago. i have been grossly
7:37 am
underemployed. my wife and i both take it on our backs and we work for it. you have to deal with it, people. let's tell washington to deal with it. host: thanks for the phone call. up next we will continue the conversation about what is next in washington with a focus on congress. after that we will talk about the second term for president obama and what that entails. we will be back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
7:38 am
>> america iraq's 25th on the speed of its internet. -- america ranks 25th on the speed of its internet. we pay the highest prices by far. by one measure we pay 35 times with the japanese pay. if you have one of these triple play packages, you paid out on average $160. in france to pay $38 and you get worldwide calling to 70
7:39 am
countries. you get worldwide television, not just domestic. your internet is 20 times faster uploading and 10 times faster downloading. you're paying less than 25 cents on the dollar. all of the other countries understand a fundamental principle. and the 19th century, canals and railroads were the key to economic growth. you had to move heavy things like steel. as the 20th century came a long, it was highways. the interstate highway program and airports that were crucial to economic growth. now, it is the information superhighway. what does the industry say? do not call it that anymore. >> on the many ways corporations tried to rob you blind. "bookeekend on c-span 2's tv." >> c-span's programming is good
7:40 am
because they try to cover both sides of the issue. they do a good job of not offering their own opinions and just saying, hey, what is your opinion? they cover the house, the senate, and of the woodrow wilson center and other public affairs centers here in d.c. i would not normally be exposed to. . jef wright watches c-span on comcat. but you as a public service by your telephone project by your cable provider. >> we are back with two longtime editors of congress here. thank you both for being here. let me show our viewers some have done from your publication. here is "the hill."
7:41 am
what is your take on this? guest: i think part since standing down may not be something we see in our lifetimes. it is always good after as much gridlock as we have seen, at least part of using terms like compromise. that is not a bad thing. let's get together. this has to be solved. but we will see. guest: we have the same players that we had with the gridlock. nothing has really changed. we are watching what nancy pelosi is going to do. the main players are still the same. john boehner, harry reid, mitch mcconnell. they have not been able to reach a deal. will they be able to move
7:42 am
forward now? they were saying some nice things yesterday, both harry reid and john boehner. actions speak louder than words. there are many obstacles what they can do in the main -- the lame duck. we covered both yesterday at a news conference. let me begin with the speaker was talking about the fiscal clef and really what it comes down to is tax cuts and whether you let them expire. [video clip] >> real economic growth eluded us in the first term of this president. without it, we cannot solve the debt problem. for the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement, we are willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. what matters is where the increased revenue comes from and what type of reform comes with it. does the increased revenue come
7:43 am
from government taking a larger share of what the american people learned through higher tax rates, or does it come as a buy part -- byproduct of growing the economy energized by a simpler, fairer tax code with your loopholes and lower rates for all. at the same time, we are reforming a tax code, are we taking concrete steps to put our entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing? or are we just going to continue to doubt the matter of entitlements, thus the root of the entire problem. host: what did you hear there from the speaker? guest: lots of code words. when they say, we are willing to consider revenue, it can mean many things. it can mean we are willing to change to raise taxes on certain groups of people. and can also mean that we are willing to do things if it will
7:44 am
make the economy generate more revenue. if you listen closely to what the speaker said yesterday, he -- he emphasized the latter. we will focus on the economy and helping the economy generate more revenue. he said, we want lower rates for all. the key part and the part is a cleaner tax code. the tax pledge republicans have taken said, no reason taxes. also, no getting rid of breaks and that the tax codes without compensating for it elsewhere by lowering taxes somewhere else. that is not what the speaker said. he suggests that you might be able to eliminate some of the tax breaks that could have an impact on what the president refers to as the richest of the rich. that is for the compromise might
7:45 am
come. guest: it is fascinating, john boehner usually using press conferences off the cuff. this was carefully planned on a teleprompter. his job just got tougher. he has a new president with a mandate. the democrats are saying he has a mandate on the taxes. he still has a majority, but it is less than they used to be. you have an expanded democratic majority of in the senate. he has to toe the line with the tea party here. he was indicating he is open for compromise. the big question is, do you reduce the deficit with that? in a speech, the recently said we cannot do tax like we did in 1986. you have to take some of the
7:46 am
revenue and put it towards the debt. host: here is jim jordan who represents a pretty strong faction within the house gop. he says this -- there is this headline in "the washington times." guest: after every election we all have the same narrative. this is a battle for the heart and soul of the democratic party, the republican party. this time it actually is. there are issues to work out here. i think at the very least what i am hearing across the board is that republicans got the message that they cannot be a party of a senior citizens that are white. they have to expand their base.
7:47 am
they have to deal with hispanics and minorities in a more attractive way. that is going to be a big theme. were the tea party fits into this, there are a lot of establishment republicans looking at those lost races in misery and saying -- in missouri and sitting, how did we get there? how did we lose two races on the definition of rape. i think you will see the social conservative side of the party on defense. how do we go forward? host: it is not only the tea party or the conservative part of the house republicans, also within the leadership, they are represented by eric cantor. here is the headline in our
7:48 am
publication -- is he on the same page as guest: the:i think he is. john boehner will do things a little bit differently. we had some major conflict between john boehner and eric cantor. that her what a lot were trying to do. we talk to republicans who were frustrated by that. there is tension between the members, tension between staff. at one point they had to have a press conference or they put their arms around each other. that shows you the needed to show it. maybe some people did not buy it. this time we are hearing the staffs are working better and the members are doing better. they came up with a game plan because they have to be united. they actually have to lead the republican congress. they have to turn it round. host: christian science monitor -- here is your headline.
7:49 am
let's listen to what harry reid had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> it is better to dance than to fight. it is better to work together. everything does not have to be a fight. that is the way it has been the past couple of years. everybody should comprehend, especially my senate friends, legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building. host: in your headline, did you hear compromise from the senate majority leader? guest: we heard both mention that word for short. the key thing on the senate side is something that is going to sound abstract. the key thing is, what kind of amendments are allowed on the floor? used to be the senate was an
7:50 am
open place. going back to bill frist, speakers did something -- i know this is arcane -- called feeling the tree. they make it impossible for the other side to raise the amendments. increasingly the amendments made the only way to the issue at hand. senators would have to take tough of votes. there were sometimes set up deliberately to make it difficult. harry reid for the past two cycles has gone out of his way to keep any vote on the floor that could embarrass or hurt his members to preserve his majority. that includes not allowing a vote on a budget in three years. the question for him is going to be, does he allow real debate on the floor? as to allow amendments? the republicans pull off a little bit and make amendments relative to the bill.
7:51 am
that is what we will tell you if there is real compromise or whether it is just words. host: and you write about that and "the christian science monitor." here is "the washington times." how can he get that done? guest: i think that will be very difficult. if there is one thing members of congress is aware of, they want today's -- today's majority could be in the minority tomorrow. it gives them a voice and a way
7:52 am
to stop from being rolled on legislation. i think he will even find some democrats -- you have this come up in the past. you find members of the majority reluctant to give up this right. i think it is going to have to have a different tone first. there is one thing he would not hear from senate republicans this year, and that is their number one priority is to prevent a second term for barack obama. that is out of the barn. these extremely damaging comments that damage the republican party is over. do they get together in a way that does not look like the only thing on their mind is having an embarrassing vote to heard the other side in the next election. host: on that point, another headline if i could -- guest: i think they will.
7:53 am
we have seen with the fiscal cliff, we have had the gang of six and eight. maybe it will expand. they have not been able to put their principles of the solution to the fiscal cliff and beyond entitlement reform into legislative language. both the left and right, harry reid said that happy talk because they have these white papers and principles, but they have different meanings and the legislative language. until they can release a bill on this in the senate reject a had a version in the house that went down -- it will not be taken seriously. there is always talk about the moderates getting together and try to come up with a solution. host: let's get to phone calls. caller: good morning. i think elections have consequences. it was a very clear that mitt
7:54 am
romney wanted to make the bush tax cuts permanent, and that obama wanted to make only $250,000 permanent. there was no question about that. when the majority of americans went to the polls, stood in long lines for eight hours, 10 hours, 12 hours, they showed that they knew what they were voting for. for the republican congress to be putting obstacles up against the bush tax cuts, i think it is unreasonable. guest: tax policy. that is what we are talking about. the interesting thing here is that some democrats, certainly in the senate, are not fond of the two and a $50,000 thresholds. they want to move him to $1 million. the senate democrats did very
7:55 am
well. if you look at the next election in 2014, you have 20 senate democrats up for reelection. among the 20, there are conservative democrats who will not be fond of raising taxes. is something republicans are talking about yesterday. they know they have to give some ground, but they are not going to give ground on $250,000. host: exit polls show voters approve of this idea. 6 in 10 said they liked the idea of raising taxes for those over two and $50,000. guest: that is the problem for republicans. that is why republicans -- and we saw john banner showing he is willing to make a deal. not saying what he will do, but they know they have to give some ground. republicans had a difficult election night. host: i think when you said the
7:56 am
next election, i heard a ground. -- a groan. laura from twitter. joyce you are up next. caller: this is food for thought. i received an e-mail that said if he spent $1 for every second, it would take you 32,000 years to spend $1 trillion. i could not believe it, i got my calculator out and check it. it really comes up that way. that is $86,400 a day that you would have to spend an order to get to $1 trillion. we owe $16 trillion already. i think that is something all the politicians and every person in this country has to think about, regardless of your party affiliation. thank you.
7:57 am
guest: that is a wonderful point. it is a reminder that sometimes in washington we are so focused on what happens inside the congress, who are the players and what are they saying, we forget that there is -- there are other players here. the stock market spoke yesterday when it dropped. the bond market -- when the united states puts out a bond offer, do people buy it? will china by it? will japan by it? well our credit rating drop again? what happens if the credit rating drops? what happens if interest rates go up? we have been conducting this recession for some time in a condition of virtual zero interest rates. what happens if they go up, perhaps even a lot? things change very rapidly in washington.
7:58 am
i think that is something members ought to talk about. suddenly it is real. if they do not solve the fiscal cliff, there is economists tell us a recession in the first part of 2013. if they punted down the road, the bond credit rating agencies tell us they will lower the bond rating with consequences. it is not just whether they can agree, it is how the larger movers, the economy and key players in it, respond as well. host: frank, an independent caller. caller: when interest rates go up, we will be in a deal. i think obama was reelected and i will congratulate him, but i will tell you something, we are doomed because we are overspending. it does not tell us anything the that we have not really
7:59 am
known. we have created an entitlement society. that is why he was reelected. he has too many people looking for handouts. they have lost all of their individual pride. as a nation we have changed dramatically. instead of standing up and doing what is right for ourselves and for our country, we're helping our country will pay for everything on the markets. i think we are doomed in the next year. host: on interest rates going up, when does that happen? he said that is when you see everyone coming together. guest: i think the stock market will have a big effect. you go back to the financial and clothes and when the stock market failed. that is when rejiggered the markets are closely watching washington. -- the markets are closely
8:00 am
watching washington. congress does one thing at a time. maybe interest rates rise. you have some seniors are upset about interest rates because the money in the bank is not making money. it is a tumultuous time and what policy makers do over the next several weeks and months will be important. host: twitter -- if tarp made so much money for the treasury, why are we 17 trillion debt? caller: i have very mark and i would like to have the question answered. i believe mitt romney lost by two million votes. there are 49 million people on welfare. do you think they would support
8:01 am
romney when they are getting something for free? people that are working, they have families, my remarks to them is good ready for the pain. this president will never change. harry reid and nancy pelosi have been screened congress for years. they will not let compromise happen. host: gail russell chaddock. guest: you raise a good question that has pushed back in the real world. you can present an entitlement like medicare, at some point people have to find a doctor that will be willing to take them. we will see in 2013 when big cuts in payments to medicare
8:02 am
providers kick in. for congress, it is a number, but for people waiting to see a doctor, it is in effect, and if they find that there are doctors not willing to see them, that is a fact the congress has to consider and i think you will see that in the next year. congress has passed something. it will open opportunity. what if it does not? what is on the ground people are not finding doctors willing to take their case? that is a big dynamic. it is not just whether they can agree in congress, but if what they have done works the way congress said it would, and that is people will see immediately in their experience. guest: both parties have
8:03 am
contributed to this. if you look back george w. bush's claims on the budget, and president obama, they said they would cut the deficit in half. neither of them did that. there were definitely accounting gimmicks in the president until health care reform law, -- president's health-care reform law, so both parties will have to give the taxes, spending, an entitlement reform. we're looking at the huge package, whenever it gets done. when that happens is a big question. john boehner does not want this done in the lame duck. he wants the new congress. two years ago, republicans had a huge night and they want to wait for their freshman to come in that he cannot counter that. he wants some kind of down payment.
8:04 am
host: chris in alabama says democrats and republicans do not even have to make a vote. all they have to do is nothing and taxes will increase. guest: that such an interesting argument. it is been around in congress to read -- bandied around in congress a lot. present -- republicans have pledged not to raise taxes. at the next vote the take will be to lower taxes, but perhaps not for everyone. it is an interesting way out of the problem. i think it was patty murray, on the senate side, who said maybe it is not such a bad idea to go over the fiscal cliff because it gives democrats more leverage. if somebody else is making harsh
8:05 am
demands they have an advantage. in this case the ones who handle the credit rating will have the voice in this as well. host: they say in "the marketplace" section of "the washington journal -- wall street journal" -- stock it already. member of twitter says what would you expect if they want to influence congress? what could wall street due to influence congress? guest: if the market as a whole dropped dramatically based on what washington is doing, washington is going to stop doing that or do something that will appease them. that would affect everyone's
8:06 am
401ks. we saw that in 2008. if the markets are jittery and retirement funds are in jeopardy, that is a huge fact. you saw that with the debt limit. when the market get jittery, that effected congress and administration. host: democratic caller. wisconsin. caller: everybody is play in the blame game, but we put them in office. they do not want to do the job, we need to build them out. tell them we want them to do their job. it is not the republican party or the democratic problem -- party. host: how did you vote? caller: i voted for obama.
8:07 am
host: and in the senate race? caller: 50 much independent. host: did you vote for tammy baldwin or tommy thompson? caller: i did not vote for either host: -- either. host: democratic column. caller: i think people are afraid to vote for third parties because they have never experienced it before. because we are in so much trouble there is no reason not to go for a third party. it is not going to hurt us. we are in such a mess there is no reason not to experiment with different viewpoints, especially when it comes to monetary policy. host: gail russell chaddock? guest: high in the huge fan of third parties.
8:08 am
there is a phenomenon of a critical realigning election, when the late shift, the new deal was won election -- was one election. people refer to this as a demographic election, and that -- that is a useful term, but democracy is not a block. out of the knicks could come possibilities for a third party -- this mix could come the possibility for a third party that would not be shackled by disputes of the past. -- we have already seen that parties have lost control of who finances candidates.
8:09 am
what if these groups turned to funding third parties? it is an interesting possibility. it is certainly no longer true that the money has to come from one or two parties. host: gary johnson, libertarian candidate, reached 1.2 million votes, the most by any libertarian candidate. do you think there is a message there? guest: i think there is always a hunger for a third party, but you need the money unless you have someone spending of lot of money to boost an independent candidate -- in this cycle we have seen the campaign for primate -- primary accountability go after a long term incumbents, and eric cantor contributed money to that
8:10 am
effort. it had a lot of members on the republican and democratic side very nervous and a few of them lost. if there is that movement. until you have the money behind it, it is just not going to happen. host: do you think there could be a legislative changes to the citizens united case? we heard from dan lungren, the republicans in california who had a race where he was challenged by outside money, and he said we need to take a look at this. guest: that is one to watch. john mccain was very critical of the citizens in that this case, and he was working with democrats in this congress, and it was postponed with the election. hearing more from republicans, even the head of the finance committee, they're not fans of
8:11 am
the democrat's fix, but there could be some movement in the next congress. whether it succeeds we will see. host: the democratic fixed is the disclosure act? guest: yes. guest: i have for democrats concerned about what karl rove was doing, and what koch brothers were doing, but democrats did pretty well when it comes to this alternative funding. it was very powerful at the end and made a difference. we now have a system where both parties do pretty well. of all of the tweets the one that made me laugh was david chiefd, the president's
8:12 am
campaign officer, who said there would be a lot of billionaires' at their refund window. host: ray, seneca falls, new york. republican caller. caller: i have an interesting theory. let's make term limits for congress and the senate, then we will get people interested in helping the country out. all i see is bickering. host: how did you vote? caller: i voted for obama. i got sick and tired of listening to these guys are due. it is just ridiculous. host: let me and to those comments. the most under-discussed result of the election, a 9% approval of congress, but most incumbents were reelected. guest: that is a difference between recent elections.
8:13 am
we have seen waive elections in 2008 and 2010. this time, both sides lost some people, but not a lot. incumbents usually do well. this is the first election in a while that a higher percentage of them did well. host: a couple of speculation pieces. but we begin with "the hill." were you hearing? -- what are you hearing? if you call there is a question whether nancy pelosi will -- host: if there is a question whether nancy pelosi will run to be minority leader. she is a force in the democratic party. she is a fund-raiser and a lightning rod, and you have young democrats that wants to move of the leadership ladder,
8:14 am
and they are trying to read the tea leaves. chris van hollen was asked, and he said he did not know. you have some steny hoyer, jim cliburn, and they're not going anywhere. if nancy pelosi decides that she's going to step aside, we will seek a flurry of activity with chris van hollen, and perhaps steny hoyer and james clyburn. host: could we see members of congress moving to the white house? that is one to watch, especially in the house. it is trickier in the sand ridge in the senate. -- in the senate. you have to be cognizant of
8:15 am
that. in the house, the minority, i think you'll see at least a couple of house democrats that joined obama's team. host: that question -- raises questions about whether john kerry could be picked as secretary of state. guest: if john kerry is collected, you have an election, and who would run for that seat? scott brown. host: "christian science monitor" headline -- "paul ryan returns to house -- is he ready for a bigger role in the gop?" guest: there is speculation that he is interested in staying on. he appears to be one of the few willing to take the difficult decisions, what ever the political fallout is.
8:16 am
even the budget document, there is a bottom line, and everyone can see what the projected deficits are if these choices are made, where the cuts are. it is something paul ryan has been willing to do and that puts him in the heart of every important decision that the house will have to make this session. i think he has definitely kept himself in the heart of it. leadership appears to be willing to give him a waiver. i do not think he's going anywhere. host: dog to sit, your publication has this had lied -- bob to set, your publication has ?ck -- bob cus guest: a lot of conservatives were not criticizing mitt romney because it was close to the
8:17 am
election, but i think paul ryan has a bright future. if he wants it, he will get that waiver from the budget committee. he also has his eyes on the ways and means committee. dave camp will be term limited as chairman. does he run for the ways and means committee? it is a powerful committee. then again, will he run for president in 2016? there is a lot of potential for paul ryan, and john boehner will give him the boy. i think he stays -- the voice. i think he stays in congress until it least 2016. host: robert, south carolina. democratic caller. caller: everybody keeps talking about government cutbacks, but we do not cut back both houses. if we paid them for each session that they attend and make them pay their own
8:18 am
retirement like the average worker, maybe we will start to see some results. they are getting away with too much. we treat them like royalty. host: gail russell chaddock, why don't you take that one? guest: a lot of the members feel that they have cut back a lot because of criticism and close looking at what the benefits are that members achieve. there have been suggestions from the left and right that if members do not produce a budget and do what they are supposed to do by law, you do not pay them. i think you find that there is growing support for some kind of sanction. it is striking that a party with 9% approval rating should return so many incumbents, but in public education, overall they
8:19 am
would say they are terrible, but overall they are fine. in congress, there is redistricting, and one of the interesting stories of the election that i would love to work on myself is how much of the gains and losses that happened were the results of a strong investment but republicans made in state houses prior to 2010 said they would be in a position to decide what the district's look like? in the end, it is part of the reason that we could spend $2 billion on a congressional election and change no numbers. it was an investment in
8:20 am
statehouses to knock off incumbents from the other the other party earlier -- from the other party earlier. host: julie. how did you vote on tuesday? caller: 5 voted for romney because i felt he was the best candidate. i did not see anything happening in the past four years as a 63-year-old that i felt would be of any benefit to me. my comment is along the same lines of some of your other callers. it is about term. we seem to forget that those people in washington are supposed to be dealing with federal issues, not state issues. john edwards came from north carolina and did not contribute anything to the state of north
8:21 am
carolina and our welfare. i saw barack obama go to the u.s. senate and do exactly what john edwards did, and that will immediately start campaigning to be present. i believe our federal legislators are there to take care of federal business and our state legislatures, to be in our -- federal legislators ought to be down in our state, sending dollars to the state, and not sending them to the federal government to have federal legislators play a large game of twister to get the best position. host: bob cusack? guest: the caller mentioned term limits, and it was something mitt romney embraced, and the republicans on capitol hill have not embraced that, and neither have the democrats. it was talked about in the newt
8:22 am
gingrich era, but both republicans and democrats are not fond of term limits. there is an argument against it, and that is when members get here, they promised to term- limit themselves, and when they get here they do not know how to legislate, they do not know where the bathrooms are, and just like anything they get experience and better at it, and they break the term-limit pledge. term limits will be discussed for a long time, but it will not be moving any time soon. host: let me go on to other legislative items. this is the front page of "the baltimore sun." and immigration reform, gail russell chaddock, what are the prospects something gets done? guest: i think the prospects went up dramatically when the
8:23 am
republicans, they have to reach out. i think we were close to elements in the past years with john mccain and ted kennedy working together, but there is some sense we are protecting our borders for national security reasons, but also a path to citizenship. what elements are there are not clear, but you will have to have assurances it would not be 1986 all over again. it will be a tough sell. both parties have suddenly and interest in resolving this issue, and there have been good ideas out there for a long time that could be revived.
8:24 am
host: -- guest: i agree. i think president obama has a huge opportunity to get a huge policy area that he promised to do. i think democrats could have gotten the dream that, done in 2009, but health care got in the way. the republican party does not have an immigration policy. they were going to come up with an alternative to the dream that, and they later backed off -- dream act, and they later backed off. the u.s. chamber of commerce wants it. they were pushing for it under president george w. bush who fell short. unions have some concern, so that is something to watch. that is something we will be talking about a lot in january, february and march.
8:25 am
host: do you think it tops the agenda list >> guest: other than the fiscal cliff and the grand bargain, i do. host: charles. connecticut. republican line. caller: i would like to see a filibuster done away with, but i would like to see it replaced with this -- whenever there is a major bill, and you can develop a definition for a major bill, but whenever a party presents a major bill, you have to pass it with at least 20% vote of the opposing party. the idea is the congress is there for the american people. if the party proposing the bill cannot convince the least 20% of the other party that this is a bill that is good for the american people, then i do not think that bill should pass. it should be mandatory that you get at least 20% of the people
8:26 am
of the opposing party to agree with you. host: gail russell chaddock? guest: that is an interesting idea, but what we have done is impose a stronger filibuster. they are not like "mr. smith goes to washington" where jimmy stewart is a gasping for breath after standing up for hours. it is like a routine where you do not have to tell the joke, and just say a number and everyone laughs. nothing happens without 60 votes in the senate. that is the filibuster. what has been suggested is 70 votes at least, assuming the majority party is 50/50.
8:27 am
have i done my math? host: you are quicker than me. guest: i dread the next question. host: exactly. [laughter] guest: right now with of the boston does is something like he said. -- but the filibuster does is something like you said. a call the pathway to -- host: the pathway to 60 includes an independent from the state of maine who has not said what party he will caucus with. guest: i think it is a good bet he will sit with the democrats. one of our reporters spoke to harry reid, and he called angus who i do not think will
8:28 am
stay for awhile. the republicans went after anxious -- angus king and the democrats did not endorse. they attack the republicans, but they did not endorse. i think basically harry reid is confident he will be sitting on their side of the aisle. host: mike, new york, democratic caller. caller: i wanted to focus in on three things i believe the democrats as well as the republicans should do that would move lower country forward. let's start with the republicans -- our country forward. let's start with the republicans. i was there with the perspective of not being mean-spirited. we know it is not going to happen 100%. the republicans think they have
8:29 am
good ideas in terms of balancing the budget. if they were to move off of the $1 for $10 of revenue, i think they would get much more done and there likability would be hired. number two, i think there is a new normal in the country, but i think underlying across the country is that there are social issues that they like and champion, that most americans like. number 3, you have to move away from grover norquist. it is sinking them way down. in terms of the democrats, i would say president obama and
8:30 am
the team really has to look at the country from 50,000 feet, and not 10,000 feet. number one, the dream act. there are so many individuals that could benefit. i know whether you are for or not, closure would be helpful. number two. single payer health care. there is an argument about whether we should have it, but if you look at the bottom line, if we were able to come to a really good balance between single payer and what the republicans are looking for and obama-care, this country would be fiscally in a better condition down the line. finally, the supreme court appointees. the most important thing that democrats and president obama
8:31 am
can do is to realize that within a few years there will probably be some folks that will retire, and a legacy that will live on will be those appointees. host: i will have to leave it there. let me divide that. gail russell chaddock, the first three of the gop side, where he says they need to unite, the social issues are ones favored by americans, which is interesting given the ballot initiatives were four states voted in support of gay marriage, and the third was you have to do away with a pledge from grover norquist. guest: there are strong convictions for this party, and for tea party members, they're
8:32 am
looking back at a golden age, and they see deed still here as a vindication -- and they see as still being here as vindication. on social issues, there will be a fight over social issues, but it will be any different set. if you had said to anyone in washington that in 2012 a big issue would be contraception and rape, they would be astonished. you have a moderate republican from the state of maine saying that we simply cannot continue -- we were a party that got started saying we believe in personal responsibility and getting government out of our lives. we cannot impose social constraints on people. it does not make sense. that is an important fight. as for grover norquist, getting rid of grover norquist is not as
8:33 am
easy as you might think. he started his career with george w. bush trying to convince republicans that they should not the campaign just in wealthy suburbs, but they should be attracting ethnic voters. what propelled him into politics with this pledge is that members police said they would do something about the deficit and never did -- members always said they would do something about the deficit and never did. the defense of every tax break, and no matter what, you have even had conservative republicans like tom coburn in the senate publicly opposing that, and that is a wedge that will crack that part of the pledge. do not underestimate the appeal of something that holds congress' feet to the fire.
8:34 am
people do not trust lawmakers and the tea party looks back on their first two years, what did they achieve? did the deficit changing any significant way? did the debt picture change, in the answer is no. that will lend more support to ideas like grover norquist. whenever we do we have to hold their feet to the fire. host: bob cusack, he gave a list for the democrats, starting with the dream that, single payer health care and supreme court nominees. guest: single payer will not happen anytime soon. what we are watching now is implementation. obama-care will be moving forward. how republicans deal with that -- it looks like house republican leaders are going to stop trying to repeal it.
8:35 am
i do not think you will see the flurry of votes to try to repeal it now that obama has been reelected and now focus on different parts of the law. eric cantor sent out a memo going after the independent payment advisory board. you see them shifting strategy and -- strategies. supreme court judges and the retirement watch, that is something that certainly over the next four years someone will retire and obama will pick a successor. host: "the wall street journal" has some names. i butchered some of those names, but those are names and pictures. richardson, macon, ga.,
8:36 am
independent caller. you are up next. caller: i would like to remind people that ideology is based on reality, but you remember walter mondale saying that raising taxes is like the kiss of death, but reagan sent bob dole ought to raise taxes. president obama increased taxes 18 times. let's face the reality. obama has the reality of the situation. host: we will go on to tulsa, okla., republican caller. carol. caller: i would like to know more, if given obama a's stance
8:37 am
-- given obama a's stance on gun laws, and do you see them trying to have increased gun control and take our guns? guest: i do not think he does a lot on guns, honestly. he did not do a lot in the first term. it is something he has supported, reinstating the assault weapons ban. he did not do anything in that area. that would be a major distraction. it is not a politically popular thing to do. since he did not do anything on gun control, gun-control groups, they gave him an f. there are fears on the right that he will go after guns. i do not see him doing a lot.
8:38 am
host: carol, tulsa oklahoma. that is who we talked to. ellen, florida. -- alvin, florida. caller: i think there was a clear difference stated between the democrats and republicans about their policies. the majority of the american people voted for obama and his policies. there needs to be compromise, of course, but i heard john boehner speak yesterday. he talked compromise, but stuck to his same policy, taking the military off the table, pushing social cuts, and taxing people that cannot afford it. the needs to be compromise, but the republicans should be more willing to compromise with the democrats. the american people spoke. we do not want more wars. we do nothing social programs
8:39 am
should be at the top of the list. host: maverick on twitter echoes what the caller was saying. congress gets 9% approval, the president gets 51%. do the math. the president sets the agenda, not john boehner or eric cantor. guest: john boehner said he wants the president to lead and we are ready to follow. that is a stronger statement than it might seem to be. one of the criticisms of the president was that he really did not lead. he left health-care reform to be worked out by congress. his budget did not take up the budget deficit in a strong way and never got a vote from a single -- in a strong way and never got a vote from a single democrat. john boehner once the president's to face the tough
8:40 am
choices that republican house members did. weber produces a budget, -- weber produces a budget, there will be difficult choices in it, and john boehner said mr. president, we would like you to do it. that will be a bigger issue, to the extent to which the president does step up and make very difficult decisions in terms of deficit, which he will have to make because the markets and credit rating agencies will forced it -- enforce it, and the in powered electric -- the demographic the electorate, hispanics, minorities, single women, they will be expecting something for their support, and the president will have to also show he is
8:41 am
responsive to cutting deficits. be careful for what you wish for. in this case if john boehner does step back and let the president to lead, he will have to make wrenching choices. host: this followup from twitter -- conservatives supporting social issues, i think the social issues are what sank the ark. i want to go back to the conversation about possible senators leaving. here is "the washington times" with tim kaine wanting to join the common sense caucus, but mark warner might decide about running for governor, and could we see another race with an empty seat?
8:42 am
guest: in virginia they have this unusual rule that you cannot serve successive terms as governor. the fact that mark warner is thinking about that shows he is frustrated in the senate. you have members of the upper chamber that has an idea, and everyone has common sense, and then they run into gridlock and they feel they can do more of the local level, and mark warner has presidential ambitions. he might feel he has done his time in the senate and will go to the governor's mansion. as far as george allen, i think they will probably have to get another candidate. he was defeated by senator jim webb, he has lost to tim kaine. he was a onetime presidential candidate. i think republicans will have to look in another direction. host: vera, sleepless in desert
8:43 am
-- saint louis, missouri. a lot of people split their tickets. how did you vote? caller: i voted for romney. host: you voted for clare mechanical? caller: no i did not. i put my vote and other issues. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: i am amazed that obama won this election. there were too many things going first of all about his legal residency or citizenship. i still do not believe his from this country i believe like the
8:44 am
sheriff in arizona does, and here i m and independent. you will just never make me -- i am an independent. you will just never make me believe it. host: what is your evidence? caller: things i read of the things i hear. why would somebody make something up like that? host: where you read and what you hear? caller: internet articles, television. host: do these questions continue in a second term? just: i'm amazed, listening to c-span, which is my favorite, it is interesting to do, especially, on the radio -- especially on the radio, and
8:45 am
there are constant calls. speaking personally, you have to ask yourself, what is the point? do you think pursuing that argument is going to take this president out of office, and if you do not think that, is there a better use of your capacities and energies and your lobbying? there are plenty of issues that you are -- a your weighing in on could make a difference in. i think the president put the birth certificate is right at the bottom in terms of what you could impact. host: ron. one last question. vermont. democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: what i want for myself is more discretionary income, and you see someone like mitt romney, who makes $20 million of
8:46 am
dividends, you say how many stocks do you have to own to get $20 million in dividends that it is just incredible. one of the things i would like to see to pay off the debt is taxing nonprofits, because most -- look at ford. they have a foundation. bill gates as a foundation. warren buffett, the same way. he says i could pay more, but raising an income tax to pay more does not defect them to read all of their money is in non-profit or the the -- does not affect them. all of their money is in non- profit organizations and should be taxed. host: bob cusack? guest: the issue has been
8:47 am
brought before, but it has been criticized do that, the people that run the organizations say not as many people will give and you will hurt the efforts to help the neediest people. it is an idea that has been battered around. maybe it comes back in the grand bargain. host: gail russell chaddock? days to resolve the so-called fiscal cliff, they come back for the clean-up session. do they start right away? -- for the lame duck session. do they start right away? guest: i think your more likely to see something happen in december, but you heard harry reid say we need to do something quickly, and john boehner said we need to do tax reform and
8:48 am
that can not be quick. i think you're most likely to see some kind of interim move that has enough teeth in it to satisfy the credit rating agencies that gives it time to work out the tax code to come up with these deficit reductions. host: bob cusack, i want to go to january with u.s. the final question, what is the tenor of the 113th congress guest: it has to be -- congress? guest: it has to be different. this congress was not able to accomplish a lot. after this death of activity, there will be a lot of potential activity in the new year. they get a lot done in five years, and potential of -- in odd years.
8:49 am
something viewers should watch is not taking what politicians say at face value. they play leverage games. john boehner did not state or party got killed. he cannot give away the farm. he is clean leverage games, as well as harry reid. i think they want to get a deal, but they have to have most of their party by into what is in the deal. a lot of this stuff, continuing negotiations, because they do not have to get it done until the end of the year, they will not get anything done next week. and: "the hill'" bob cusack gail russell chaddock, from "christian science monitor," thank you. the conversation turns to the white house.
8:50 am
what is next for the second term of the obama administration? we will be right back. ♪ >> i need some help over here.
8:51 am
>> where is sergeant robert yates today? >> we end up following him at this plane ride for many months, and he entered himself into a program at walter reed, where they used acupuncture, medication, other techniques to wean him off of the drugs that he was on, and through this program, he was able to walk out of walter reed on his own two feet. i commend the military for two things. one, allowing us to tell the
8:52 am
story, but also for recognizing the problem by recognizing there is the problem of over- medication and they're looking for ideas on how to fix it. that is the thesis of the film. the status quo is not working, and we need to look for outside of the box ideas. >> more with matthew heineman, producer and director of "escape fire." sunday, on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with our reporter roundtable with margaret talev from bloomberg news and scott wilson from "the washington post." here is your special coverage from this morning. what is next? what is the first item for the second obama administration?
8:53 am
guest: the first question is the so-called fiscal cliff, which no one wants the country to go over but no one as a way to fix. the president will spend most of the next year working on that. he will have staff issues to work on with turnover in his cabinet, and the senior levels in the west wing as well. those are the most pressing things he will take on first. host: margaret talev, what did you hear from him wednesday about negotiations on the fiscal cliff? guest: you heard him say he reached out to leadership and that he was serious about tackling this. vice president joe biden, in more detail, also said that he has had conversations and they are serious about doing this. a big part of this is in terms of perception, is the president
8:54 am
reaching out and engage in more than he has in the past, and not just with republicans, but his own party. host: bloomberg's headline -- " dial tumble's most in one year after presidential elections." guest: what if he had not reached out, right? part of what is going on in the markets might have to do with concerns about europe, but some of it has to do with divided government, and on the one hand this is not a huge surprise. it is not like a broad expectation was mitt romney was going to run away with the election and everything would change, but until there was no answer wall street was holding its breath and the initial reaction was to say that we are worried about uncertainty between now and the end of the year. host: scott wilson, what do you here in in terms of one of which were you hearing in terms of
8:55 am
whether you get -- what are you hearing in terms of whether you let the bush era tax cuts expire? guest: the president said he is going to let those expire, and part of the discussion in the white house and capitol hill is what is the meaning of his election? what were voters saying? mitch mcconnell said this is not a mandate to continue the excesses' of your first term. john boehner seemed more open to the idea of allowing more revenue, the rate increases on the wealthy to resolve the fiscal cliff issue. i think the president, and i know his left wing, is certainly holding him to the pledge on the campaign trail that he will let the proper rate expire at the end of the year and intends to hold his own in arguing for that. host: margaret talev, that brings up the mandate question. does he say what george w. bush
8:56 am
said, i have political capital and i intend to spend it? guest: if you have it, use it, or what other people say it for you. right now, president obama's game is not to come out of the box, acting takeda, and give republicans -- acting cocky and giving republicans an idea -- a reason to want to stick it to him. he is saying let's get this done. that is what he is serious about, there is no reason to set yourself up as having more leverage than you do. host: margaret talev, and the go to this headline in bloomberg. what does he do on his health
8:57 am
care law, if anything? guest: so, it really is a little bit of the congress, and this will play out in fiscal cliff and debt reduction negotiations, but a lot of this is in the hands of the states and whether they want to engage on the medicare front and in setting up their own exchanges. this will play out fairly quickly in the coming weeks. the notion of a repeal effort of what mitt romney pledged is gone now. there will be tinkering around the edges and governors making decisions pitted the individual state will have a lot to do with how the state receives it. host: scott wilson, "the washington post," your colleague, "jobs will be the real test for obama."
8:58 am
guest: i think that the second to the fiscal cliff. if all of the bush era tax cuts expire without any renewal, and all of the sequestration, across-the-board spending cuts take place, some economists estimate two, three, four points off of gdp, plunging the country into another recession. the best job plan for the president is making sure those things do not happen, and then after that we will see what he proposes again, whether it is a mix of tax cuts for small businesses and stimulus, but that is the primary focus. host: what about the immigration reform, margaret talev? when does that come up? guest: in some ways it already has. you saw the latino turnout, 70%, which set up latino activists
8:59 am
saying basically to obama that you owe us. even states like texas and their future, there is discussion about that, but how have -- how fast will that happen with the fiscal cliff and divisions among the republican base and among the democratic party, moderates against liberals, it is complicated to figure out how big you can go with immigration in a year where the grand bargain will be the biggest thing on the table. host: politically, is that issue now a wedge one? guest: it has always been a wide one, the republicans have a different motivation than they did three days ago, and they will look to who is the head of the republican party, with their platform be? they hear a different calculus to figure out, -- they have a
9:00 am
different calculus to figure out. the democrats, and president obama, and for the purpose of his legacy, if they do not try to move forward with a real package them as a prospect of immigration reform, if they tried to use it as a wedge issue, they might -- find themselves in a problem latino . host: this from the washington post today. scott wilson. guest: i think it is following what margaret said. the republicans lost the team knows by 40 points. they are losing by huge amounts. some people think by 2016 and
9:01 am
beyond, texas could come into play as a swing state. there is not a huge urgency on the republicans to try to repair that damage. after a republican primary showing mitt romney talking about self-deportation. i think there will be more -- even before tuesday, the white house will most likely find a place to work with republicans on immigration. host: let me go back to jobs from the associated press this morning. i just wanted to add that to the mix, given that jobs could be the second item for president
9:02 am
obama. let's go to knoxville, tenn essee, a democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: if the republicans are serious about compromise, they would take out their grover norquist pledges in front of cameras and tear them in half and say we are not going to put this one man in front of 300 million americans. i was happy to hear harry reid yesterday trot out the filibuster and possibly want to serve that up for thanksgiving. that is my comment. thank you. guest: they are probably not going to take those out and tear them up but you are starting to see john boehner and other
9:03 am
republicans try to figure out what language to use to try to indicate they would be willing to negotiate revenue. increases in federal revenue as part of a comprehensive package which will be the boundaries of this negotiation, the idea of trimming deductions and loopholes. in the end, more federal revenue means someone is paying more in taxes whether it is a tax increase or deductions they were not getting which amounts to an increase. to virginia, a republican caller. caller: i have two comments. the first one regarding the many comments i have been hearing this morning about the mandate. president obama won the election and i congratulate him.
9:04 am
we have 57 million people who voted for governor romney. we have 57 million people plus voted for some or all of the president's policies. we cannot forget these people because we had 63 million people vote for the president. as a country, we are deeply divided. guest: he is right and i do not think that is lost on the president. this was not a showy, cocky " i won and you guys are going to have to live with that" type of speech. he thanked people who did not vote for him. i think you are going to see -- you do not have to say you have a mandate. congress is still divided, the country is divided, the popular vote was very close.
9:05 am
so i think he will move ahead very much in the way instinctively he always has wanted to which is pretty much in the middle looking for compromise. for him, the highest tax rate for the bush tax cuts is what he is after. >> a viewer has this tweet -- herman in maryland, an independent caller. go ahead, herman. >> caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c- span for giving us a public platform. i think most american citizens and people are concerned about the hyper partisanship and the polarizing debates and figures that we have at the capital. this is not just congress.
9:06 am
also the administration being divisive and using mandates and ultimatums as a way of moving forward. if the parties want to heal, one thing they should do is to name leaders in congress as minority leaders that are not polarizing, that are not going to work across the aisle. people who will compromise. i do not see that from it mcconnell or harry reid. possibly from john boehner but he does not have an lot of support from his party members. we did not see that from nancy pelosi in the first four years. we need leaders who can work across the board who can voice for the party'ies. host: what do you think
9:07 am
negotiations are going to be like this time around between president obama and speaker john boehner and from the democratic majority in the senate? guest: i think what herman pointed out is an actor reflection of the way most people see the four corners of leadership in congress which is that john boehner has been historically and by reputation the one who has been positioned as personally most willing to negotiate but representing a caucus that has been the most recalcitrant across the aisle negotiations. president obama has last year's version of the fiscal cliff fresh in his mind bending the concern from the white house about john boehner is whether he can really deliver. now whether he is a decent guy to work with, but whether he wants to do that will his caucus
9:08 am
will let him do. democrats have expanded in the senate enough to get senator mitch mcconnell's attention. john boehner -- if he is inclined to negotiate personally on immigration and tax revenue and stuff, he has now some republican voices outside the congress on his side. to the extent that that repositions him, it might help. host: let me go to the senate on negotiations. they have increased their majority, yet there are more moderate democrats coming back. you have an disking, in independent. they have been more moderate and they have disagreed with the
9:09 am
democratic leadership and president obama. >> that is right. i think the senate is a place where the election and what voters were trying to say about the tea party and recalcitrants in the congress broadly played out much more. they had candidates who were seen as very conservative in indiana. so i do think there is more of a message although mitch mcconnell has come out more in transit then john boehner so far. from 2010 adn those mid terms cans'went the republi way, it culminated in the
9:10 am
standout of the debt ceiling. this feels different this time. john boehner said yesterday voters were saying "compromise." i think the senate has tended to be more moderate. mitch mcconnell who famously said his job was to make sure obama had only one term, obviously that is not a goal anymore. i think there is more for senate leaders to look at from the election. host: mike from hawaii, it republican caller. caller: president obama said while running for president, he said if he could not get the unemployment rate down to 5.5%, he might be looking at a single term. number two, we have a mess.
9:11 am
the same mess we had before the election and now after the election. the only way we can solve this mess is to have our president, mr. john boehner, and nancy pelosi, and the train wreck from las vegas, nev., in the oval office for a couple days with a lot of coffee and cigarettes for mr. john boehner out on the porch and we have to have a grant agreement before christmas. guest: christmas is asking a lot but it is going to take that kind of concerted effort to get this. some saw the statements yesterday as putting back on the table some of what he offered the president last year which was undermined by the conservative wing o fhis party in congress and eric cantor.
9:12 am
i think we will see those sorts of negotiations taking place. i think by the end of the year is probably asking a lot. host: is the obama administration open to let's let all the bush tax cuts continue for at least six months until we can come up with a deal? guest: that is one of the $64,000 questions. if the obama administration thinks republicans in congress are willing to do a grand bargain starting in the spring, they are going to do whatever they have to do. probably, right? or, maybe. i don't know. they will not say it. his position publicly is his position publicly which is he
9:13 am
wants them to expire. president obama now got reelected. so the whole strategic goal of the next four years changes. it is now about legacy and preventing a new recession and about trying to get a couple of mid range of things done. host: steve in illinois, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. i think the republicans have been very successful in their campaign to polarized this country. i hate them with a passion and will never hired a republican in my life. i disowned my father because he is an idiot republican. ththey have successfully turnede into a hate monger. congratulations, republicans, i hate u. host: john, you are on the air.
9:14 am
hey, joh, in new york? not there anymore. jerry in massachusetts, an independent caller. caller: i am a rockefeller republican, something most people are not familiar with. i am fiscally conservative and socially moderate. at this point, i find most social positions of the republican party intolerable and most spending of the democratic party intolerable so i really do not have a place to go. the only thing i would say is we are now spending 40 cents more for every dollar spent, we are borrowing 40 cents. it just seems to me i have not heard the word "sacrifice" being used by either party.
9:15 am
i am a senior and i know i have not paid enough taxes over the last 30 years. the reality is, i benefited for all these years by under paying my taxes. host: do you think the president uses that word in negotiations? guest: it is a perceptive question. i don't know about that word in particular. on the campaign trail, certainly you heard him saying over and over again that the rich have to pay more. that is a suggestion that sacrifices have to be made. this is a conversation that has been taken place with this president. there was a sense of who is really bearing the burden of the wars, both fiscally and the actual fighting. i think it has survived this
9:16 am
time in this context in a tax way. it has been a concern for more than 10 years now. guest: the grand bargain which will get dressed up with all kinds of words -- what we are talking about is sacrifice by everybody. growth of entitlements which means for most people who are not 65 or close to that yet, less money later. less money for social security cannot less benefits for medicare. on the flip side, you are looking at loopholes as an issue, may be less of that. you are looking at sacrifice across the board. president obama wants to emphasize taxing wealthy people, but to get a grand bargain you are talking about the whole country getting less in order to change the course of spending
9:17 am
and the in and out ratio of revenues and confidence for investors the amount of interest we pay them bank that is what we're talking about. host: on twitter -- what is his plan for jobs? guest: it has yet to be determined. how much tolerance will there be for more spending? tax cuts have not proven to be a very effective stimulus in the past. is that the extent of this? he had a new jobs bill coming out last year that did not get very far. does he revive that question $400 billion in tax cuts and new spending. is that possible? spending cuts mean something to
9:18 am
people, as do tax cuts. it is unclear how he will approach the recovery. i know that is a perception to the twitter writer's points. the numbers show there has been some. when obama took office, the congress was losing 800,000 jobs. host: does he have to work with congress on this? guest: he did some of that during the campaign year. but he has to work with congress. postcode the huffington post has a list of things that president obama -- host: the huffington post as a list of things that president obama promised on the campaign trail.
9:19 am
so, beyond those sentences, do we know how you get those things done? guest: specific things like corporate tax rates and investment in advanced manufacturing, i think those are fairly tubal within the existing budget. when you talk about how many jobs are going to be created, how do you do that? that is a political promise. mitt romney had planned for how many jobs he was going to create. president obama can be measured against that later. when it is targeted niche things that can be negotiated, that is something he can get done.
9:20 am
broader goals are really about rhetoric and how people perceive them. it is not easy to measure. host: you touched on this at the beginning. i will ask both of you to talk about staff changes in the obama administration. guest: some of the big cabinet members. secretary clinton has said she is going to go. secretary leon panetta is likely to go at some point although he may stay through the sequestration tlaks which would mean $55 billion to the pentagon. those are big cabinet members and they are likely to go which will take over some dominoes inside the administration as people move up to fill those. inside the west wing, he may have a new chief of staff.
9:21 am
that would be his fourth that he has named. these are times when he can look at those working for him. only two cabinet members left in the first four years. he can begin to tailor his staff to what he wants to pursue. host: eric holder the attorney general has said he will stay on. guest: that is right. he has had a mixed record. he has had a mixed relationship with the white house. he would not be the easiest guy to ask to leave. if he wants to stay, i imagine he would probably stay. host: "the wall street journal" says this --
9:22 am
margaret talev, who replaces let's start with hillary clinton? guest: it is a great question. i think the conventional wisdom is right in that there are two candidates that are being looked at. john kerry, a sit-in for mitt romney in president obama's debate prep. the present perform strongly in the last two. they have different cases to make for each of them. for john kerry, the problem is if they take him out of the senate, they have lost this big guy in the senate and they open up massachusetts again. one perceived problem is the whole libya, benghazi
9:23 am
controversy that popped up to us before the election in terms of whether susan rice would toe the line. to the extent that that would resonate or persist is unclear. host: one newspaper this morning said possibly former senator luger for secretary of state. guest: when everybody decides there is one or two candidate, there is always somebody who could come out of nowhere. in the weeks between now and the end of the year when a lot of the decisions are going to be made, there is a floating up of names to see what happens .he president obama will certainly be looking for republicans to put in high-profile positions to bolster the possibility of
9:24 am
negotiations between the senate and house and to show americans that he was serious about reaching across the aisle. host: if the replacement of treasury -- what message does that send? guest: it obviously recalls the simpson-bowles commission and their proposal to achieve a grand bargain. the president did not embrace that entirely. with a grand bargain, often it is all nothing. he was a little frustrated it was presented that way at the time. i think it sends the message that this is a centrist democrat who worked on this commission with republicans and came up with an idea. he is someone who can do that. a lot of these names -- it is unclear how engage the president
9:25 am
has been in this. he may get these names and say i don't want them. i think we are going to see a clearer a list in the weeks ahead. host: a republican from new jersey. caller: i have a few comments. i would like to poitn two questions to margaret. the way to sum up the second term for the new obama administration would be the first day of his presidency in his second term, the east coast was faced with nine government fema offices that were closed due to weather conditions. these people have gone 10 days without heat, hot water. the first day of the obama administration, the businesses were closed at. benghazi is not a side issue.
9:26 am
it is a very big issue. we all have to share and sacrifice right now. 48% of the people are on food stamps and welfare. i think everybody knows to be on the government dole, you just have to sit back and vote for a democrat. i think to ask for shared sacrifice is a little bit too late. guest: i think he is articulating what a lot of people who have been critics of the obama administration feel which is a problem president obama has to contend with. i think part of why he will look to republicans who he feels he can work with to bring them into the administration is precisely to help them understand these concerns. host: are the concerns spending concerns? she was talking about people who get government assistance. guest: deductions and loopholes
9:27 am
are not going to affect you if you are not filing your tax returns. that is part of the mix and part of the debate leading up to the election and something he has to take into account because it reflects why these issues have been very difficult to negotiate. twitter -- r oer on guest: yes, i do. there were some spending cuts on the table certain during the debt ceiling crisis as well. so, i do. the devil is in the details. what is going to be cut? it is if things that he talks he has proposed secured spending cuts at the pentagon. republicans did not like that.
9:28 am
so, yes, i think he understands spending has to go down but that is not answering the question. host: i want to go back to benghazi. what will we hear from the ministration on that question what happened during those attacks? guest: now that the election is over, we will be hearing more from the independent investigation on this. but most likely the discussion of this is going to be initiated by republicans. this is not something the obama administration is eager to bring up again. what they are looking toward is syria and iran, and that is what they want to be able to concentrate on. if it is ambassador rice who is nominated to the secretary of state, this is an issue that will come up again in the purposes of debate over a
9:29 am
nomination and may come up with another nominee as well. senator john kerry has defended ambassador rice and therefore may be asked to explain that if he were nominated. to the extent -- i do think primarily between now and the end of the year, the debate will be focused on domestic, economic, and fiscal issues. host: let's go to foreign policy because "the washington times" as this headline -- scott wilson, do you expect that he does that? troops on the ground? guest: i do not expect troops on the grand. as far as the president would go in syria, the next step is some kind of a no-fly zone. you will start seeing the model that he put in place and advocated for in libya.
9:30 am
he is someone who moves incrementally. the next real step is the first plunge into military would be directly harming the rebels. they do not know the rebels that well. they do not want to start sending heavy weapons to groups that are clearly influenced by islamists. that has been one caution. the next step would be considering some kind of international no-fly zone like what took place in libya. host: iran pose a nuclear program? do we know what he might do? guest: i think in terms of old assertions of next steps, some of that may wait for the next secretary of state. this is something that the next secretary of state would be shepherding through and then
9:31 am
stick it in somebody else's lap. it is probably strategically not what the administration wants to do unless your hand is really forced on the issue. in both of these instances, particularly next steps in syria, libya does serve as a major warning and a major concern. do you know what you're leaving behind? be really have an ability, once your surgical operation is done, to have any control over what is going on there? on both fronts, i agree with scott that sort of caution, the pacing of this -- also the building of international coalitions. russia will be a big player. and on iran, what are our international allies, partners, the guys we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in
9:32 am
russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- for
9:33 am
romney, obama's regas overseas, his inability to stand up to this rising asian power. the united states and china are so intertwined economically that is a very hard to start any kind of a fight between the two over trade. but the united states certainly is playing a more aggressive role in asia. the president leaves in a few days, as he does every november, for a series of summits in asia, regional gatherings. the bush administration did not bother with these things. these are important for him. more military resources are being put into play in the pacific. whether or not there has to be a choice, it does not seem quite the right question. these are the two major economies that are going to be dominating the world for quite some time. they depend on each other. but there will be particular showdowns over china's
9:34 am
contested rights in some of the islands and seas around them, and united states is already showing more willingness to take them on -- take them out on some of these issues. host: on the middle east, you mentioned legacy is a big motivator for president obama. guest: this will be sort of like immigration reform, another major goal he is looking ahead to after the fiscal cliff. but the difference will continue to be that the u.s. president cannot decide what the middle east peace deal is going to be. that is a matter between israel and the palestinians, and the u.s. can nudge and between and all of that. but in the end, if netanyahu and the palestinians are not in the position to bring resolution to this, then at it is not really going to be something that
9:35 am
president obama can do. certainly something he would like very much to do. netanyahu -- i mean, now that the election is over, i think we will see prime minister netanyahu have a recalculation of the relationship with obama and how it has to go forward. it has not been close in the previous four years. it has been pragmatic and grudgingly accepting a reality on both sides, but there is an opportunity for that to change. host: do you have thoughts on that, scott? guest: just a follow-up. netanyahu had a personal relationship with romney and was a very secret about who he wanted to win the election and that was not president obama, who applied quite a bit of pressure to israel in his first term to try to secure a peace deal called israel settlements in the west bank. israel felt sort of hard-done by a lot of this bit of the agreed a lot on iran, so it was kind of
9:36 am
a two-phase relationship. back on the palestinian question. pretty good on the wrong question. very good on the israeli military strength question. but netanyahu is now getting pressure in his own domestic politics. israel does not like when their prime minister does not belong with the u.s. president. that is not good for the israeli prime minister. netanyahu did a very good job of managing a difficult relationship in the first obama term. his feeling -- he is feeling some pressure now. that may give obama a little more space on iran, and it may push netanyahu a bit towards a little more work with the palestinians on trying to get some talks going. host: butler, a kentucky, democratic caller. caller: what i was going to talk to you about is most of the people on the stage today -- probably around 10 or 15 years old at this time when we had this thing called nafta.
9:37 am
we were so down the road that this was going to create a billion jobs for american people selling goods to china and it was going to open up the whole world at that point in time to emerge in goods and all these things. it did just the opposite. you know, i go into a store and i cried because -- i am 55 years apriluyi cannot even b thinks made in america. i cannot buy a hot water heater made in america. i cannot buy a tv made in america. i cannot buy nothing made in this country. even the chemicals for my pool are made in china. i am so sick of looking at china that i think i am living in china. i think we have been sold a bag of goods by republicans when they was in there and clinton was in there. i think we have been sold a bag
9:38 am
of goods -- you know, nobody wants to admit that nafta was a mistake. ross perot stood there and told them that it would be sucking the jobs right out of this country. host: do you think, economically, we need china and vice versa? i mean, in this global world? caller: what do we need them for? besides china starting wars in the middle east and owning as money to go over there and fight them, what do we need china for? they are buying our oil, metals, and everything that our resources that we need. but what else are they buy you? trade expert,ot a i know, margaret, but their economy depends on us and our economy depends on them. they depend more on our resources.
9:39 am
but explained that relationship. guest: they are buying some of our stuff. caterpillar equipment. johnethel is growing countries, when they have growing infrastructure, they are buying what they want to buy. american technology, which opens up another topic of discussion, but a lot of it -- the concept is created in the u.s. and then it is put together there. our economies are intertwined. i think that on the question, globalization and all its implications are huge part of the political debate in this country. over jobs, over national security. this is the new reality. you cannot put nafta or globalization or the internet back in a box. it was not china, it would be india and countries in africa. it already is making products that are either american in concept or are just completely
9:40 am
international products. host: scott, let me add this to the mix -- the reporter notes that this will presumably not be much appreciated by beijing. guest: burma is a place that china perceives as in its sphere of influence. particularly as a place to get the resources it needs. timber along the borders, oil. there has been a backlash inside burma which is why we saw political reform their last year which is the reason the president is going, against china. in the way it treats burma as it basically its backyard forest to cut down. point, the caller's every product that he described there would be a lot more
9:41 am
expensive if not for china. he touches on some very important which was the implications of what nafta meant and what globalization more broadly means when it not well articulated by president clinton or subsequent presidents. president bush wanted a hemisphere-wide free trade summit. it is very dislocated, particularly on american manufacturing jobs. i think there is a -- but the prices of the goods that we by obviously are a lot less expensive because of the extremely low labor costs in china. host: this comes from twitter -- the church secretary has said he is leaving, right? -- the treasury secretary has said he is leaving, right? guest: it is a matter of time. he has had an enormous task.
9:42 am
the focus will move away from things like the bailout and crisis negotiations and more into domestic and long-term fiscal concerns. at least in the first year or two years of the obama second term, unless there is an unforeseen crisis that the treasury secretary has to deal with. someone who is more interested and more expert in negotiations with congress, resolving things like entitlement issues, someone who has been around since the days that reagan and tip o'neill. social security, medicare, these are the things a lot to do with the treasury secretary's next job, and timothy geithner is looking for to be able to pass the baton. host: secretary of state hillary clinton has said she is leaving. guest: president obama and the rest of the world knows that these are two big cabinet jobs that he needs to make a major priority right now. obama is like, -- you see a
9:43 am
couple different tiers of priorities. also with sequestration hanging out there, the understanding is that leon panetta would probably like to move on as soon as the president is ready to let him go but does not have the same timetable as the other two. host: palm beach gardens, florida, independent caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you, good morning. you do a wonderful job. it the two guests are completely missing the points. the callers are raising great issues. the last one was fantastic with china. we really do not need child labor for any of our products. they're made it cheaper but we have to buy three of them when we used to have to buy one because they breathe easier. but the main reason why i call this because there is no power in washington. i hear your guests constantly talking about the power in washington and the mandate they have for do not have. there is no power in washington.
9:44 am
the power is, we, the people. there are two forms. there is the press, your guests, the mainstream media, and now the alternative media. it is, we, the people that can actually protest and address the grievances. we have that right under the constitution which has been taken away from us, by the way, with what was signed on december 31, 2011 by obama. now even you reporters can get locked up with no due diligence, no process, you know, no going to the court to get a subpoena or anything. they can just take away and lock you up even though you're part of the press. the press does not speak out about that peered my point is if you, the press, actually focused on the issues, you control washington appeared with benghazi, the bloomberg reported there, she says that the republicans are going to focus on in benghazi. hello, you should be focusing on
9:45 am
benghazi. host: ok, let's take that point. guest: i agree that the press should pay attention to foreign policy issues, and scott and i both write about foreign policies. i agree with that. at the reporters had been taking seriously questions about what transpired due to those attacks and continue to. only as a political issue, the obama administration is probably less interested in talking about this than the republicans are. but in terms of the power and whether arrests inside washington or outside washington, i think there are demonstrations of this. when there is higher voter participation, it reminds politicians that people are watching and that there are consequences for their policies that they propose. and when the public polls back and is less and gage, the power concentrates much more on the heels of congress and in washington. host: pennsylvania, republican, go ahead.
9:46 am
caller: thank you. i am a hungarian refugee. basically i came out of hungary in 1956 when the revolution was there. i was only 17 years old and i came out by myself, crossed over a mine field to get to america. over here, i was able to put myself through college. i have a good job and a good family. i am very happy with america. but i am very, very, very concerned about the new obamacare in the should've. and what are you going to do with the doctors? what kind of incentives are you going to have for them, the good ones, to stay? how are they going to be compensated. the reason is as a concerned about this, because we had a socialist government or the government owned the doctors, owned hospitals and you cannot go to anybody else but to them. and we had a lousy care. i was 14 years old and i had a cavity and i needed a filling. they pulled my tooth. i had an infection in my arm.
9:47 am
instead of really treating it, i almost lost my arm. if you wanted to have real care, you had to go to a doctor at night and pay him under the table. so that is what my biggest concern in. host: ok, scott wilson? guest: i think the uncertainty surrounding a big change that obamacare is bringing to the health-care system provokes a lot of fear. you look back at what was actually passed and the problems that obama had with his own party in not going to a more socialized government option in that initial plan -- the obamacare plan is conceived as going to be a boon for insurance companies. they will be negotiating with doctors and hospitals, and i do not know how that is going to shake out. but we're not at a place where the government owns anything. and i think it is important to
9:48 am
keep that in mind. what does happen now is that there has been a limbo overstates beginning to employ a gimp -- implement the next big stage of this plan, setting up insurance exchanges, getting some of those things going because romney promised that on day one he would try to regulate. everyone has been waiting. you'll see the next phase of that going forward. it is important to realize that amid much criticism from the democratic left, in particular, obama did not do some of the things that the caller is concerned about. host: i want to move on to beat storm and a second storm that is on the east coast. here is the "daily news" and the "new york post" headlines -- this sucks! and god hates us. would you think the administration is going to be asking for from congress to
9:49 am
respond on the east coast? margaret? guest: so far, the storm has been something that everybody on both sides have been able to get behind in terms of talking about the need for quick response. it helps that there are republican as well as democratic governors that are affected by this. and make it completely a bipartisan issue. every day multiple homes a day, the white house and fema have been forwarding a sort of play- by-play, who president has spoken to, who fema has spoken to, calls from cabinet members, calls from governors. constant ongoing throughout the day, conference calls about need and demand. what you have got now is a congress that will come back briefly pre-thanksgiving for the lame duck session and come back after the holiday and will be very much occupied by the fiscal cliff. nobody is going to want a demagogue.
9:50 am
congress is poised to give government extra whatever. this is not what anybody is fighting about right now. host: this from twitter -- how about colin powell as secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? guest: it is interesting. he has said he does not plan to go back to government, but of course he did endorse the president twice. i do not know the ones to get back in that job which i think as he looks back was not his most pleasant experience. it would be obviously very different under president obama, but i do not think he is at that point in his career. host: highland, california, democratic caller. early morning for you. caller: good morning, c-span. i just wanted to say that it seems to me that the republicans are either -- [indiscernible] or they do not believe they lost this election.
9:51 am
seems like they act like they have all the power and they do not. i think the american people have made it clear that we want to go -- what the policies of obama to go forward. also, i think that iraq and what happened on 9/11, is still leaves a bad taste in most democrats mouth because that was not politicize, but now they want to politicize in gauzy. they forget that this economy and over the cliff, and more, was caused by republicans. i do not think the american people forgot what transpired over the last 10 years, and that is why we're where we're at. i do hope there is compromise, but i believe that obama has all the power and i think that he should let all the tax cuts expire and negotiate with them in regards to the -- the war
9:52 am
thing and cutting the military, negotiate with them on that. thank you and have a nice day. host: we will go on to donna in st. louis, missouri, independent caller. caller: greta, you have been great this morning. i do not agree with anything these two said about trade, but that is not why i call. there was one thing i agreed with from a caller. the president needs to leave. he needs to channel lbj and play hard ball. he needs to get on tv as much as he can and tell the american people how grover norquist iwith hundreds of millions of dollars from the rich and powerful threatens every congressman up there in the next election to run millions of negative ads and take them out if they dare to raise one penny on the rich and their taxes. that is what keeps us from the
9:53 am
compromise budget deal, and that is why all of us will suffer when we go off that fiscal cliff. guest: i think a couple of points, and it goes back to what was said about where the power really is -- president obama, during his first term, spend a lot of time at key moments inside washington and found that to be a giant mistake. when he got outside washington and began mini campaigns, whether it was on his health- care legislation or immediately after the debt ceiling to become even that approval ratings rise and he had a little more power when he returned to washington. and i think you're going to see more of an outside end-game -- not immediately, because he has to talk to these people here about the fiscal cliff issues, but particularly in the next two years when he really has to get things done before he is a true lame-duck after the 2014 midterms.
9:54 am
you know, the playing hardball, i think he intends to do that. marie talked-about the republicans need to realize what has happened here reheard vice- president biden say hi for some soul-searching by republicans. i think you'll hear a lot of recriminations, a lot of interpretation about election results from the republicans, and perhaps that will, as margaret noted earlier, a move some of the republican recalcitrance. host: a recent headline from the "washington post" before the election. a future fed is obama wins with several pictures. it is noted that ben bernanke would be a safe pick for obama if bernanke would be a willing to take on a third term. what are you hearing? guest: they have a little bit of time to figure this out. host: the term expires in 2014? guest: it they will use a little bit of time to figure it out.
9:55 am
not to say they're not thinking about it. if romney were elected, would we be talking about this right now? for president obama and the cabinet positions, particularly the treasury secretary, that will be the first step before they get to that. host: fresno, california, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am going to quickly say i am listening to a lot of these calls coming in talking to democrats and republicans alike kind of complaining in saying that republicans should do some soul-searching or what-not. no, if we were to go to the grocery store or go anywhere else and tell each other -- where these buttons as a dozen a democrat or republican, i wonder how we would get along with each other? i think we have to keep in mind that we're not democrats, we're
9:56 am
not republicans. we are americans and we are christians as well. we are a mixture of up so many things. i i really am -- i used to be a democrat years ago because my mother was a democrat. then i turned republican because my father was a republican and i learned from both of them. i respect both parties. i did not vote for obama, but i did not vote for obama because i just, you know, i do not like the gentleman. i have to go with my way of living and to live according to how i am taught and how i have lived all my life. and when people call in -- i mean, if they are going to be critical of anyone, please do not criticize them on a personal note like that, because we have to carry on with our country.
9:57 am
and i believe that mitt romney was a hope for me and there would be a change for the better, and i believe that everyone has to look at this government and know that, yes, we do need all the things that our forefathers developed. because congress is important. host: ok, i will leave it there. on twitter -- as are not convinced that raising taxes and reducing spending ensures certain depression. nobody knows what will happen. we saw how the markets reacted to the election news yesterday. scott wilson. guest: yes, no one knows what would happen, but i think taking a lot of money again out of the economy, at least the private sector, and bringing it back into the government in the form of a broad tax increases is not something that is politically reasonable for a lot of people. and really, most economists had
9:58 am
a pretty good sense of what is going to happen and it will affect economic growth. host: letter you hearing about outreach between the white house and ceo's? guest: it is pretty early, but it will be something that they have to talk about. has been a troubled relationship for some time, really since obamacare and the wall street regulations. they brought in bill daley at the beginning of 2011 to try to fix this. it did not really work that well. i think that will be on their remedial list of things that they have to do soon. guest: after the election, in reaching out to romney, obama says he would like to bring him into the fold in the coming weeks. and we do not know the answer to the question, is that lit service or is that real and how much does romney want to engage?
9:59 am
does he want to be helpful and be a player in this? is that about partisan politics or is that about business politics? governor romney will probably not mount another bid for president, and his role in the republican party going forward is unclear as well. in terms of the base that sort of grudgingly came to support him and being disappointed by the loss. in business and ceo world, he knows corporate executives who run businesses, investors on wall street, all over the country and all over the world. did the extent that you can be engaged and a player on that level, i think, is one thing that president obama and his administration could tap in an area where they really need help. host: scott wilson, a lame duck session begins next week. any plans for beer summits or go

Washington Journal
CSPAN November 8, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EST

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Washington 41, John Boehner 29, Obama 27, China 20, Us 16, Harry Reid 15, U.s. 10, America 9, Scott Wilson 8, Nancy Pelosi 8, Obama Administration 8, California 7, Grover Norquist 6, Mitch Mcconnell 6, Clinton 6, Margaret Talev 6, New York 6, Benghazi 6, Paul Ryan 5, Israel 5
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:01
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 11/8/2012